Convinced by witness who spoke ‘truth’

The two Victorian Court of Appeal judges who upheld the trial jury’s verdict said George Pell’s victim was ‘compelling’.

Chief Justice Anne Ferguson. Picture: Supplied

The two Victorian Court of Appeal judges who upheld the trial jury’s verdict said George Pell’s victim was a “compelling witness” whose evidence “had the ring of truth”.

Lawyers for Pell had argued the victim had fabricated his story but in a majority verdict on Wednesday chief judge Anne Ferguson and president of the court Chris Maxwell­ rejected that submission.

In their judgment they accept­ed that the victim had buried his memories of being abused in the priests’ sacristy after getting caught by Pell drinking sacra­ment­al wine with a fellow choirboy, who has since died.

President of the Court of Appeal Justice Chris Maxwell. Picture: AAP

The victim gave evidence that he had compartmentalised the two incidents of abuse and pushed them “away from my normality”.

“It’s something I’ve carried for the whole of my life … and … took a courage much later on for me to be able to even think about coming forward,” the former choirboy said.

He said he did not report the abuse until 2015.

Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice­ Maxwell said the victim had been caught “red-handed” drinking the wine in a prohibited place and anything he said about Cardinal Pell “was almos­t certain to be disbelieved”.

“In our view, this was a very significa­nt part of (the victim’s) evidence,” they said.

“It was rightly characterised as compelling, both because of the clarity and cogency of what (the victim) said and because of the complete absence of any indic­ation of contrivance in the emotion which (the victim) conveyed when giving his answers.”

Australian Cardinal George Pell is escorted in handcuffs from the Supreme Court of Victoria in Melbourne. Picture: AFP

Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell said the victim came across as someone telling the truth and his explanations for not ­remembering some things yet ­remembering others “had the ring of truth”. “He did not seek to embellish­ his evidence or tailor it in a manner favourable to the prosecution,” they said. “We were not prompted at any stage to doubt the veracity of his evidence.”

They said the victim correctly identified where the wine area was in the priests’ sacristy and recalled in some detail the layout and furnishin­g of the alcove where Pell discovered him and his fellow choirboy.

He also placed the abuse as occurrin­g in the priests’ sacristy that was temporarily used at the end of 1996 by Pell while the archbishop­’s sacristy was being renovated.

“In our view, the jury were ­entitled to view these ‘undisputed facts’ as independent confirm­ation of (the victim’s) account of having been in the priests’ sacristy in that period,” the judgment said.

According to Chief Justice Ferguson­ and Justice­ Maxwell, there were also a number of reason­s for the victim to remember particular conduct but the recol­lection of the other witnesses, including church staff and choristers, must “necessarily be affect­ed by their recollection of the ritual that developed thereafter”.

They said the evidence of the witnesses only confirmed that what the victim alleged wasn’t impossible but allowed that the defence’s arguments of implaus­ibil­ity or improbability were powerful.

“It was, of course, highly ­improbable that someone in Cardinal Pell’s position would have acted in the way alleged, in the circumstances in which he was alleged­ to have done so,” they said.

“In the first incident, there was a high risk of discovery; there was a high risk that one or other of the boys would cry out; and there was a high risk they would report him. The risk to his reputation, and positio­n, was enormous.” They found it was “open to the jury to be satisfied of Cardinal Pell’s guilt ­beyond reasonable doubt’’.